An Unconstitutional Path to The Presidency

The most important, though covert, issue of the 2008 presidential election was that of Barack Obama’s ances- try. His American ancestors went back hundreds of years. No, wait. Make that his African ancestors who went back hundreds of years, -no make that thousands of years; -no, wait, -make that tens of thousands of years. If his native African father had married an indigenous American, (forever erroneous labeled “Indians” by Columbus) then there would have been a truly colossal clash of ancestries; -different continents, different cultures, different languages, different religions, different races, and different countries.
Instead his significant ancestral clash was not in any of those realms but in that of his parents’ nationalities. Which citizenship would he be born with? British? or American? Or both? Let’s consult the Constitution.

The presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution reads either: A. Every person born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction is eligible to be the President,” or…
B. No person, except a a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of the President,”

Which one is correct? Answer A relates to one who is made a U.S. Citizen via the 14th Amendment which the American people passed in 1868, two years after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That act granted citizenship to former slaves as well as children of immigrant fathers and mothers. It required that children of foreigners not be under the jurisdiction of any foreign power. Since the federal government regarded its lawfully permitted immigrants to be under its jurisdiction and not the foreign government that they had left, children born to them were thereby granted U.S. Citizenship via the amendment that permitted it.

The 14th Amendment required that those born in the U.S. be subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, which children of immigrants would be because their father would be subject to federal jurisdiction, and his status applied to them as well.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act referred to foreign jurisdiction and left one to infer that persons born in the U.S. who weren’t born “subject to any foreign power “ were therefore subject to U.S. Authority.

The 14th Amendment referred to American jurisdiction and left one to infer that persons who were born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction were therefore not subject to that of any foreign power, but since it failed to explicitly state that, it left the door wide open for one born in the U.S. being subject to the will and laws of two different governments, -governments that might someday even be at war with each other. That is the worst-case scenario that accompanies possessing dual citizenship, and the amendment failed to prevent it.

That would be the down side of owing allegiance to two different governments and nations, but in the United States, there is one more significant downside, and it’s related to who is eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States’ defensive and offensive military might, including at one time 30,000 nuclear bombs. The problem arose because the wording of the 14th Amendment is so lacking in context and circumstantial detail that it came in time to be erroneously perceived as being a blanket, fundamental citizenship statement that included all native-born Americans in one single group though that was not its intent nor effect when it was written and ratified.

In the minds of indiscriminate thinkers, the distinction between those who are born to foreigners (and made into Americans via laws or an amendment), and those who are born to the native members of the American nation, namely its citizens, was lost. That loss of recognition of the fundamental difference between the two groups was irrelevant until the presidential race of 2008 when someone from the wrong group ran for the only office in the whole country for which the distinction is crucial, and that was the office of the President.
The founding fathers put a roadblock on the road to the presidency at the juncture point where two paths meet. The roads are very close together, -one might think they are one and the same road, -but they are not. Those roads began at two distinctly different places of origin. They appear the same because they’re parallel, and nearly everyone on those roads was born and raised in America as Americans, but what sets them apart is the point at which the roads begin.
One road begins at the point where one is born into the American family to parents who are members of the American family, -becoming a natural member by birth. Such membership requires no act of Congress, nor any constitutional amendment, nor any Supreme Court ruling. They were members by birth and are so without any law whatsoever granting them that with which they were born.
But the other road began with birth to immigrant alien parents who were not free of their relationship to their homeland because they were not naturalized American citizens. They remained subject to the authority of two governments, and through them their child was also. The child was born with what is known as “alienage”. Such a child was not 100% American, but only 50% American because he was simultaneously a natural citizen of his parent’s homeland because he inherited the right to that membership via his blood connection to parent members.
The difference between the two roads and those who’ve traveled them has never made any difference in their lives, unless they were one of the very few ever elected to serve as President. Then it makes all the difference in the world. At least it should, because the Constitution put a roadblock on the road that has its origin with a father who was born in a foreign nation, was a citizen of that nation, and was subject to its jurisdiction. Those citizens born with that origin were barred from serving as the American Commander-in-Chief because of the issue of unquestionable loyalty to America and America only.

So which answer is incorrect? Answer: A. And which form of citizenship did Barack Obama possess at birth; A?, or B.? Answer: Possibly neither; -he’s definitely not a natural born citizen because of his foreign “alienage” (due to his foreign father), nor a constitutional citizen through his father because he wasn’t an American immigrant. He may have been, due to the U.S. Naturalization Code, purely a British subject by birth. It all depends on whether or not there is unmistakable evidence (not parental affidavit testimony) that he was born in the United States. If he wasn’t, then his mother was too young by several months for her citizenship to be conveyed to him. A U.S. birth would provide him citizenship through his mother via the 14th Amendment.

Answer B is the correct answer, but who exactly is a natural born citizen? It is they who inherit the nature of their citizen parents. Citizen parents produce citizen children. Parents who are members produce children who are members. It’s been that way since time immemorial in every clan, tribe, people, and nation on earth. Foreign fathers produce foreign children. No foreign citizen can father a natural American citizen. And only citizen fathers can father natural citizens.

Understand this, citizenship, by any form of naturalization, whether automatic or by process, including constitutional citizenship, is NOT natural citizenship. Even the Constitution can’t make one something that is a result of a natural blood connection, just as the Constitution can’t make one human or non-human.
The Constitution expressly requires that the President be no one except a natural born citizen, and naturalized citizens are not natural born. They are man-made citizens even if they’re made citizens at birth. Natural citizens are “nature-made” and their citizenship is not granted nor regulated in any way by any law ever passed by Congress.

Congress was given no authority to pass citizenship laws except in regard to those where are not natural citizens. Those who are not natural citizens have direct connections to foreign nations, whereas natural citizens do not. Their only foreign connections are indirect, -through grandparents, -NOT through birth abroad, nor through parents. When foreigners become officially recognized residents of America, then any children born to them will be constitutional naturalized-at-birth native-born citizens via the 14th Amendment.
Any foreign father who becomes a naturalized citizen will father natural born citizens, and any children born to him in the U.S. before naturalization will become a U.S. citizen, but not a natural born citizen because he was a foreigner when they were born.
For better or worse, the man that the Democrat Party knowingly made their candidate even though he was not even close to being a natural born citizen, is heading for a reckoning some day. Whatever the outcome will be, it will inescapably be tumultuous. Perhaps it will be revolutionary in scope, including a full-blown constitutional crisis like the nation has never seen. But it’s impossible to say which scenario would be worse; -that reality comes down like a hammer on a complicit government and the party that committed the biggest election fraud in history, or that the only response be like the sound of one hand clapping.
But silence, like action, is a choice when it is the choice of a free citizen with a free citizen’s responsibility to keep their wayward government close to, if not on, the straight and narrow path. Just as one is responsible for their own words, so all are responsible for their own silence, especially when they are supposedly leaders and sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution but don’t.
Instead they deliberately ignore and and trample it with authoritarian, oligarchical, Marxist-leaning, unconstitutional laws and judicial decrees that are treasonous to the Constitution and the unalienable rights of free individuals. They may not pay the price for their cowardice, but We, The People, surely will, sooner or later.
The price will be the moral, spiritual, and financial disintegration of the nation and its citizenry. No house of cards can extend into the sky indefinitely. No illegitimate abandonment of the principles of a nation’s fundamental law will leave that nation with a foundation on which it can justify its own actions. It will eventually come to a crisis point where those who make the ultimate decisions (the Supreme Court) will choose to enshrine the illegitimate violations of fundamental rights as permanent law, -or they will have to declare the whole house of cards to be illegitimate, even those sections built on its own decisions of the past.
If they ever get around to facing that conundrum, it will probably be too late, -the damage will be done and may be irreversible. The creeping loss of liberty over the generations and the progressive growth of government power and bureaucratic authority results in a web of illegitimate power and personal benefit that is so pandemic and endemic that its overthrow becomes less and less feasible every day.

With the entire establishment against the resurrection of individual liberty and an open discussion of the truth about an illegitimate President and the corrupt and constitutionally treasonous legislative agendas of both political parties, the only things in favor of those who are true patriots are the current and former members of the armed forces, and officers of the policing forces of local and state governments, religious and fiscal conservatives, and the heroes depicted in popular movies, TV shows, and video games who fight evil, despotism, tyranny, enslavement, and injustice. Those heroes didn’t exist a few generations ago, but with the current means of access to media, they can influence new generations without end.
But admiring heroes and voting responsibly and two very different things. Voting can be swayed by desire for new or current benefits, as well as the personal appeal of candidates and their grandiose promises, but heroes are permanently stuck in people’s minds and will consciously, or subconsciously judge the behavior of those who make the decisions that will determine the future for all of us.

Like this:

Related

About arnash“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason.
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their
behalf.” - George Orwell
“Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to An Unconstitutional Path to The Presidency

I have come to the conclusion that the definition of “natural born citizen” is explicit and implicit in Article Two of the Constitution without the need to reference outside sources.

Article Two: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”

Such a disclaimer, or qualifier, is not included in the eligibility requirements for Senator. All it takes is to be a citizen no matter when one runs for Senator, so it was not necessary to state being a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution. In fact, it would be an impossible provision to comply with once the original citizens died.

The reason for the modifier for President to include citizens at the time is that “natural born citizen” did not need to be defined further. It was understood by common parlance that “natural born” meant having Citizen parents; and by that definition, it would not be possible for all citizens living at the time of the adoption to be “natural born”, because that could only happen after children were born to US citizens, which could only occur after adoption of the Constitution.

Without the modifier, no one could be President until a child was born of US citizens and lived at least 35 years. Therefore, all citizens at the time of adoption were given an exception, until the “natural born” qualification could kick in.

In fact, the first President that actually met the true definition of “natural born” was John Taylor, the 10th President, who was born in 1790, after the adoption of the Constitution; and he was inaugurated in 1841.

Therefore, the only citizens who could qualify for President would be those alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Neither Obama, nor Rubio, nor Jindall meet that exception.

Many who try to avoid the issue by stating that it is clear that they are citizens do so by actually making the argument against themselves since the Constitution is clear that the only “citizens” qualified to be President had to be citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A most excellent point, and irrefutable. But I believe that the United States of America didn’t come into being with the ratification of the Constitution but with the Articles of Confederation. They created a federal government, but an inadequate one. AN